PetitionLens
Log inGet started
All decisions
DismissedNational Interest Waiver · Appeal

Technology corporation

Computing, AI & data · decided 2026-05-14 · SCOPS · MAY142026_03B5203

Official PDF on uscis.gov

How each part of the test was decided

Read from the appeals office's own sentences by fixed rules, not from the Director's findings or the petitioner's arguments. Each result shows the sentence it came from. The official PDF controls.

  • Step 0Eligible for EB-2Not decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 1Merit and national importanceNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 2Well positioned to advance itNot decided

    No finding on this in the appeals office's own words.

  • Prong 3Worth waiving the job offerNot met
    Why
    Because the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary satisfies the third prong, it cannot establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. p. 2

The decision in brief

Sentences picked out of the text automatically. Read them in context below; the official PDF controls.

Summary sentence

Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. See in text

What the AAO decided

Read the full decision (3 pages)

Objections found (3)

Automated tags. Each shows the sentence that triggered it.

  • Prong 3Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification
    It does not meaningfully address or contest SCOPS' specific findings that the Petitioner did not establish that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong. 2 In its denial, SCOPS specifically noted that it considered factors including the impracticality of obtaining a labor certification; the benefit to the United States from the beneficiary's prospective contributions, even if other U.S. workers are also available; whether the national interest in the individual's contributions is sufficiently urgent; evidence that the beneficiary's en… See in text (p. 2)
  • Prong 3No urgency shown
    It does not meaningfully address or contest SCOPS' specific findings that the Petitioner did not establish that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong. 2 In its denial, SCOPS specifically noted that it considered factors including the impracticality of obtaining a labor certification; the benefit to the United States from the beneficiary's prospective contributions, even if other U.S. workers are also available; whether the national interest in the individual's contributions is sufficiently urgent; evidence that the beneficiary's en… p. 2
  • Prong 3Labor certification not shown to be impractical
    It does not meaningfully address or contest SCOPS' specific findings that the Petitioner did not establish that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong. 2 In its denial, SCOPS specifically noted that it considered factors including the impracticality of obtaining a labor certification; the benefit to the United States from the beneficiary's prospective contributions, even if other U.S. workers are also available; whether the national interest in the individual's contributions is sufficiently urgent; evidence that the beneficiary's en… p. 2

Full decision

OCR text from the official PDF, reformatted for reading. Scan errors carry over; the PDF controls.

Highlighted: Outcome (2) Tagged objection (1)Matter of X citation
Decision header
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · Non-Precedent Decision of the Administrative Appeals Office · In Re: 42644144 Date: MAY 14, 2026 · Appeal of Service Center Operations (SCOPS) Decision · Form 1-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers (National Interest Waiver)

The Petitioner, a technology corporation, seeks employment-based second preference (EB-2) immigrant classification as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree, as well as a national interest waiver of the job offer requirement attached to this classification. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § l 153(b)(2).

Service Center Operations (SCOPS) denied the petition, concluding the record did not establish that a waiver of the required job offer, and thus of the labor certification, would be in the national interest. The matter is now before us on appeal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.3.

The Petitioner bears the burden of proof to demonstrate eligibility by a preponderance of the evidence. Matter ofChawathe, 25 I&N Dec. 369, 375-76 (AAO 2010). We review the questions in this matter de novo. Matter of Christo 's, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 537, 537 n.2 (AAO 2015). Upon de novo review, we will dismiss the appeal.

To qualify for the underlying EB-2 visa classification, a petitioner must establish they are an advanced degree professional or an individual of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Section 203(b )(2)(A) of the Act. If a petitioner establishes eligibility for the underlying EB-2 classification, they must then demonstrate that they merit a discretionary waiver of the job offer requirement "in the national interest." Section 203(b)(2)(B)(i) of the Act. Matter ofDhanasar, 26 l&N Dec. 884, 889 (AAO 2016), provides the framework for adjudicating national interest waiver petitions. Dhanasar states that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may, as matter of discretion, 1 grant a national interest waiver if the petitioner demonstrates that: (1) the proposed endeavor has both substantial merit and national importance; (2) the individual is well-positioned to advance their proposed endeavor; and (3) on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States. Id.

The Petitioner states that it is a "leading developer and innovator of advanced wireless technologies, products, and services." It claims that its products play in integral role in modem society and impact various key industries in the U.S., including automotive, mobile communications, Internet of Things 1 See Flores v. Garland, 72 F.4th 85, 88 (5th Cir. 2023) (joining the Third, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals in concluding that USCIS' decision to grant or deny a national interest waiver is discretionary in nature). p. 2 (IoT), networking, consumer electronics, and healthcare. The Beneficiary currently works for the Petitioner as a staff modem technologies software engineer. In his "Statement ofProposed Endeavor," he states his proposed endeavor is "to drive innovation and efficiency in wireless communication technologies through the meticulous design and optimization ofRadio Frequency (RF) digital modules and algorithms."

SCOPS determined that the Beneficiary qualifies for the underlying EB-2 classification as an advanced degree professional but did not satisfy any of the three requisite prongs of the Dhanasar analytical framework, any one of which is dispositive.

On appeal, the Petitioner limits its arguments to SCOPS' analysis of the first and second Dhanasar prongs. It does not meaningfully address or contest SCOPS' specific findings that the Petitioner did not establish that, on balance, waiving the job offer requirement would benefit the United States under the third prong. 2Did not show the waiver outweighs labor certification

In its denial, SCOPS specifically noted that it considered factors including the impracticality of obtaining a labor certification; the benefit to the United States from the beneficiary's prospective contributions, even if other U.S. workers are also available; whether the national interest in the individual's contributions is sufficiently urgent; evidence that the beneficiary's endeavor may lead to potential creation ofjobs; and evidence that the beneficiary is self-employed in a manner that generally does not adversely affect U.S. workers. SCOPS outlined the many factors considered, and the Petitioner does not directly address any of the points beyond its vague references and assertions that the evidence establishes the Beneficiary's eligibility. As the Petitioner has not addressed with specificity SCOPS' determination that the Beneficiary does not qualify for a national interest waiver under the third prong, and in particular the impracticality of the labor certification process, we deem the issue to be waived. See Matter of Garcia, 28 I&N Dec. 693 n. l (BIA 2023) (providing that arguments that do not meaningfully challenge the decision are waived); Matter of O-R-E-, 28 I&N Dec. 330,336 n.5 (BIA 2021) (providing that arguments not developed on appeal are deemed waived).

Because the Petitioner has not shown that the Beneficiary satisfies the third prong, it cannot establish eligibility for a national interest waiver. As this issue is dispositive of the appeal, we decline to reach and hereby reserve remaining issues and arguments concerning SCOPS' determinations as to the first and second Dhanasar prongs. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (per curiam) (holding that agencies are not required to make "purely advisory findings" on issues that are unnecessary to the ultimate decision).

ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.

NOTICE: This constitutes the final decision in this matter. The filing of a motion will not postpone the effect of the decision. 8 C.F.R. § 103.5(a)(l)(iv). Aliens who are not lawfully present, or who are 2 In its appellate briet: the Petitioner acknowledges that SCOPS also denied the petition on the third prong. It states "the Petitioner submits that the evidence ofthe record establishes that it is substantially more likely than not ... that, on balance, the Beneficiary's contributions will benefit the United States more than what would accrne from another labor certification." However, the Petitioner does not address how the Beneficiary would meet prong three beyond offering this general statement. p. 3 otherwise inadmissible or deportable, may be subject to the commencement of removal proceedings under section 240 ofthe Act through the issuance of a Form I-862, Notice to Appear. Those proceedings may result in their removal from the United States and possible ineligibility for future visas or other immigration benefits.